Exploring Time

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Philosophy Now
Posts: 1204
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

Exploring Time

Post by Philosophy Now »

Nurana Rajabova looks for a way of seeing time as if from the outside.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/147/Exploring_Time
Bjack959
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:21 am

Re: Exploring Time

Post by Bjack959 »

I would like to point out that the downside to looking at time this way lacks dimensionality. Look at time from a standpoint of your past is the future and will become the present at that point in space. If you were to time travel to a past point it becomes your future point until you arrive and now it becomes your present. Philosophy cannot consider time if it does not consider the multiverse or dimensionality of any point in time.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Exploring Time

Post by Age »

Philosophy Now wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:20 am Nurana Rajabova looks for a way of seeing time as if from the outside.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/147/Exploring_Time
Nurana Rajabova wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:20 amAdmittedly, the idea of time travel has always given me a smirk. I suppose that is because to me it has always sounded like a fantasy that could never be actualized. Hence, entertaining the idea of its possibility felt like a waste of time. Nonetheless, as I encounter this concept more and more often these days, especially as a part of intellectual conversations and philosophical speculations,
Absolutely every 'thing' human beings have 'created' was once 'thought of' as being absolutely impossible, and just about absolutely every 'thing' human beings have 'done' was also once 'thought of' as being absolutely impossible. But yet it was everyone of these 'thoughts' which was absolutely wrong, instead. What is called 'time travel' is not just possible but can be done very simply and very easily.
Nurana Rajabova wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:20 amI must admit that somehow time travel keeps me wondering. My momentary contemplations, however, do not necessarily focus on whether it is practically possible to travel to a certain point in the past or in the future. Rather, they help me deep dive into the nature of time itself.
All one has to do is just work out and know what 'time', itself, is exactly, and then the so-called 'nature of time' is also known, and well understood.

By the way, why do adult human beings write about 'things', like; "Exploring time", but never actually define what the 'thing' is that one wants to 'explore' or 'talk about'.

IF one is not yet able to define the word that one is so-called "exploring", in public writing, then what is 'it' exactly that they are "exploring"?
Nurana Rajabova wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:20 amDefining time may, at first, seem quite straightforward. After all, we are all familiar with the idea of time in the sense of duration and its measurement. However, what time is in its essence is a much more difficult question, with a long history of philosophical disputes and still no agreed definition.
But what 'time' is exactly, in its 'essence' as some might say, is very simple and explain to define and explain, and in a way that fits in perfectly with every 'thing else, and so does not contradict with any 'thing' else either.
Nurana Rajabova wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:20 amOur most common intuition tells us that time is a passing phenomenon. What this entails is that space (or the physical universe) is in a fixed or static position and time, like a film running through an old projector if you will, comes and passes through the universe. As time comes, it brings all the changes with it. In other words, the universe changes through time.

Alternatively, one can also see this relationship between time and space in the reverse way. As my friend once said, “Time is not passing. We are the ones passing through time.” In this sense, time can be imagined as a static line consisting of past, present and future points. However, unlike the previous view, in this case the one in motion is believed to be space (or physical reality). In other words, space and everything in it move along the line of time. As it progresses the points it leaves behind are deemed to be the past, the point it is standing on is considered to be the present, and the points that it has yet to encounter are the future.

In both of these views, time and space are seen as separate entities with the potential to intersect at a certain point. It is only this intersecting point that has real existence. Outside of this intersecting point, time on its own without space conjoined to it, has no reality whatsoever. Note that the intersecting point is always the present. The points (or times) we refer to as past and future, being outside of this intersection, are not in existence. Hence, they are not real. To put it differently, time becomes real only at the point it meets space. Any point outside that is not existent.

Secondly, in such an understanding of time, there is a non-permanence or succession factor: the present comes into existence when the past is gone. When the present is in existence, the past is not, any longer. Similarily, the future also can come into existence only when time meets space and the future becomes the present. In other words, the future becomes real when it becomes the present. Therefore the future, in its commonly understood sense, is never actually in existence.

Lastly, another key factor in this view is motion. That is, be it the universe passing through time or time passing through the universe, there is a motion that makes their meeting possible and only as a result of this motion the present happens to exist and be real.

This view of time is known in philosophy as presentism. It is the view that only the present exists. The past has been but is no longer, while the future will come to be but is not yet. This view in fact dates back to ancient thinkers, one of them being Heraclitus (c.500 BC) who famously said: “You cannot step twice into the same river, for other waters and yet others, go flowing on… Everything flows and nothing abides; everything gives way and nothing stays fixed.” (Wheelwright, 1960)

Presentism fits well with our conventional view of time, which understands time in terms of a perception of change; as John Locke put it, somewhat archaically, “When that succession of ideas ceases, our perception of duration ceases with it” (An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 1689, p.174). The Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume expressed a somewhat similar understanding of time when he wrote: “As it is from the disposition of visible and tangible objects we receive the idea of space, so from the succession of ideas and impressions we form the idea of time… Wherever we have no successive perceptions, we have no motion of time, even though there be a real succession in the objects” (A Treatise of Human Nature, 1738, p.35).

Given that I am examining the idea of time in the context of time travel, naturally the main question that arises for me is: what does this view of time tell us about time travel? Can time travel be considered possible, given this understanding of time? The short answer for me is: it cannot. The reason is obvious. Let’s suppose I build a machine to take me to some point in the past. Unfortunately, according to the presentist view of time, the past does not meet physical reality any longer, consequently it does not exist. Therefore, travelling to any point in the past is not possible.This argument also holds for time travel into the future. The universe has not yet intersected with the future moment I want to visit, therefore the circumstances that would make that possibility real do not exist. Hence, travelling to any point in the future is not possible either.

Now, does that mean the nature of time absolutely forbids the possibility of time travel? It seems so. But all hope may not be lost yet. There could be a way. However, for time travel to be possible the presentist concept of time would need to be negated, since we can travel only to a point that exists. Consequently, for us to be able to travel to any moment in the past or in the future, it would be necessary for those moments to be in existence alongside the present; to be within the boundaries of where time meets space. This could happen only if time and space were in a static relationship to each other, such that, let us say, the line of space runs in parallel to or is superimposed upon the line of time. In other words, time travel is possible only if all the times of physical spatial reality all exist, not just those in one’s present. This view in philosophy of time is known as eternalism, and it says that the past, the present and the future all exist somehow ‘all at once’.

Arguably, the first defender of eternalism of whom we are aware was the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides. He explained his philosophy with the following words: “There remains, then, but one word by which to express the [true] road: Is. And on this road there are many signs that What Is has no beginning and never will be destroyed: it is whole, still, and without end. It neither was nor will be, it simply is – now, altogether, one, continuous… Permanence is basic. No things come to be or, slipping into the past, cease to be. Past, present, and future are distinctions not marked in the static Is. Time and becoming are at best secondary, at worst illusory, as our understanding of the world confirms” (trans. Philip Wheelwright, 1960).

Clearly eternlism defies our most intuitive and commonsensical view of time. But consider it this way. Imagine consciousness as a pair of binoculars through which you can only see a narrow frame. Through seeing and feeling yourself only in a certain instant, you get the idea, if not the illusion, of the present. You feel like in this particular instant you are in a different time from the past which is already gone as well as the future which is yet to come – whereas, if you took the binoculars away, you would see it all: Time would appear to be timeless, as all the points of existence would coexist alongside the present, including those deemed to be past and future to those of limited vision. Of course, fortunately or unfortunately, you can never take away those binoculars thanks to the limited capacity of human perception. We all live with the perception of time, whereas, in reality, time may be something our mind makes up due the narrow frame it’s able to perceive and is unable to break free of.

As we can see, the eternalist understanding of time allows for time travel to be possible. Moreover, it also may allow for the theoretical possibility of seeing the future. It’s not possible for anyone, even God I dare say, to really see something that does not exist. If we accepted eternalism to be true, we could argue that the future exists, and perhaps that any potential prophets and clairvoyants simply had wider binoculars than ordinary people, enabling them every once in a while to catch a glimpse of future events hidden from the rest of us.

To conclude, the idea of time travel may always remain a fantasy, with no possibility of being actualized in the physical world, yet it can serve an important purpose for us by unleashing a different understanding of time. More often than not, we take time to be a phenomenon with real existence only in the present. This theory of time absolutely negates the possibility of time travel. However, time travel could be a logical possibility if we stretch our understanding of time to take it as an ‘eternal’ phenomenon, regardless of how counter-intuitive or paradoxical that sounds. If we do, we also choose to view time’s passing as an illusion the mind comes up with thanks to its narrow capacity to perceive beyond a certain frame.
What is called 'time travel' is not just possible but can be done very simply and very easily.

Also, the 'Mind', Itself, does not have a 'narrow capacity to perceive' at all. In fact the very opposite is True. What has a 'narrow capacity to perceive' is just the brain alone, and this is just because of how the brain works.But once the brain is 'opened', again, then the 'capacity' is changed.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Exploring Time

Post by attofishpi »

Age wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 1:15 pm
Philosophy Now wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:20 am Nurana Rajabova looks for a way of seeing time as if from the outside.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/147/Exploring_Time
Nurana Rajabova wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:20 amAdmittedly, the idea of time travel has always given me a smirk. I suppose that is because to me it has always sounded like a fantasy that could never be actualized. Hence, entertaining the idea of its possibility felt like a waste of time. Nonetheless, as I encounter this concept more and more often these days, especially as a part of intellectual conversations and philosophical speculations,
Absolutely every 'thing' human beings have 'created' was once 'thought of' as being absolutely impossible, and just about absolutely every 'thing' human beings have 'done' was also once 'thought of' as being absolutely impossible. But yet it was everyone of these 'thoughts' which was absolutely wrong, instead. What is called 'time travel' is not just possible but can be done very simply and very easily.


If you know what time is, then you will understand that one can only travel toward the future, not the past.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Exploring Time

Post by RCSaunders »

Age wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 1:15 pm Absolutely every 'thing' human beings have 'created' was once 'thought of' as being absolutely impossible, and just about absolutely every 'thing' human beings have 'done' was also once 'thought of' as being absolutely impossible. But yet it was everyone of these 'thoughts' which was absolutely wrong, instead. What is called 'time travel' is not just possible but can be done very simply and very easily.
It's not time travel that is the real issue. In the sense that time travel means being able to be at different, "times," one is traveling in time for their whole existence, because one is always at different times. What is not possible is to be in two times, just as it is impossible to be in two places. Wherever you are is here and you cannot be both here and there, and whenever you are is now and you cannot be both now and then.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Exploring Time

Post by jayjacobus »

Philosophy Now wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:20 am Nurana Rajabova looks for a way of seeing time as if from the outside.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/147/Exploring_Time
Time progresses the universe. It does so in small steps which form a chain of events.

The universe changes from one state to the next and then the next and so on........ The universe is not a series of different universes.

In order to get to the past, the past would either have to be next or a different universe would have to be next.

Both hypotheses are groundless.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Exploring Time

Post by bahman »

Philosophy Now wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:20 am Nurana Rajabova looks for a way of seeing time as if from the outside.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/147/Exploring_Time
Time is a substance that allows changes. Here is the argument: Consider a change in a system, A to B. A and B cannot coexist since the process become simultaneous, therefore A and B have to exist at different points, lets's call these points t_a and t_b. t_b has to come after t_a. There is however a duration between t_a and t_b otherwise the change does not occur. t_a and t_b are points on a varaible. This variable we call time. The now is when we are either at point t_a or t_b. If we are at t_a then t_b should exist otherwise change is not possible. This means that future time exists. Therefore the past time exists too. Therefore, all events in the past exist too that is called memory. The future events exist up to the point of a decision since they are decided by the laws of nature. How about traveling to the past? We do it all the time, so-called recalling memory. Can we undo events that occurred in the past? Yes. But that requires the creation of a parallel universe. We are however trapped in the second universe always.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Exploring Time

Post by Age »

attofishpi wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 6:20 pm
Age wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 1:15 pm
Philosophy Now wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:20 am Nurana Rajabova looks for a way of seeing time as if from the outside.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/147/Exploring_Time
Nurana Rajabova wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:20 amAdmittedly, the idea of time travel has always given me a smirk. I suppose that is because to me it has always sounded like a fantasy that could never be actualized. Hence, entertaining the idea of its possibility felt like a waste of time. Nonetheless, as I encounter this concept more and more often these days, especially as a part of intellectual conversations and philosophical speculations,
Absolutely every 'thing' human beings have 'created' was once 'thought of' as being absolutely impossible, and just about absolutely every 'thing' human beings have 'done' was also once 'thought of' as being absolutely impossible. But yet it was everyone of these 'thoughts' which was absolutely wrong, instead. What is called 'time travel' is not just possible but can be done very simply and very easily.


If you know what time is, then you will understand that one can only travel toward the future, not the past.
You say and write this like you know what 'time' is, irrefutably. So, would you like to now explain to the rest of us what 'time' is, exactly?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Exploring Time

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 2:01 am
Age wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 1:15 pm Absolutely every 'thing' human beings have 'created' was once 'thought of' as being absolutely impossible, and just about absolutely every 'thing' human beings have 'done' was also once 'thought of' as being absolutely impossible. But yet it was everyone of these 'thoughts' which was absolutely wrong, instead. What is called 'time travel' is not just possible but can be done very simply and very easily.
It's not time travel that is the real issue. In the sense that time travel means being able to be at different, "times," one is traveling in time for their whole existence, because one is always at different times. What is not possible is to be in two times, just as it is impossible to be in two places. Wherever you are is here and you cannot be both here and there, and whenever you are is now and you cannot be both now and then.
Are you here saying that let us say the 50 year old body, which 'you' are in, can NOT travel to let say where the 30 year old body 'is' NOR to where the 80 year old body 'is'?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Exploring Time

Post by Age »

jayjacobus wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 1:01 pm
Philosophy Now wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:20 am Nurana Rajabova looks for a way of seeing time as if from the outside.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/147/Exploring_Time
Time progresses the universe.
What is 'time', to you, EXACTLY?

And, how would that 'thing' 'progresses' the Universe, EXACTLY?
jayjacobus wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 1:01 pm It does so in small steps which form a chain of events.
This sounds like you are saying that, to you, 'time', itself, is NOT a continuous 'thing' AT ALL, correct?

If yes, then are you able to explain how this stop/start progress could work, EXACTLY?
jayjacobus wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 1:01 pm The universe changes from one state to the next and then the next and so on........
Will you provide examples of what some of these 'states' are, EXACTLY?
jayjacobus wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 1:01 pm The universe is not a series of different universes.
To even ASSUME that 'the Universe' is a series of 'different universes' would just be ABSURDITY in the EXTREME.
jayjacobus wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 1:01 pm In order to get to the past, the past would either have to be next or a different universe would have to be next.
WHY do you make this CLAIM?

What PROOF do you have for this CLAIM here?
jayjacobus wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 1:01 pm Both hypotheses are groundless.
So, WHY present them?

How to do what is sometimes referred to as "time travel" is ACHIEVED in a DIFFERENT WAY, anyway.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Exploring Time

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 10:51 pm
Philosophy Now wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:20 am Nurana Rajabova looks for a way of seeing time as if from the outside.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/147/Exploring_Time
Time is a substance that allows changes.
So, to the one known as "bahman" here, if there was NOT some 'substance' in the Universe, then the Universe would just STOP.

Is the one known as "bahman", or is there absolutely ANY one, who can INFORM the rest of 'us' what this, supposed AND alleged, 'substance' is EXACTLY?

If no, then WHERE did this ASSUMPTION that 'time' is a 'substance' COME FROM, EXACTLY?
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 10:51 pm Here is the argument:
WHY do you call 'this' argument "the argument"?

And, is 'this argument' 'your argument' or 'someone else's argument'?
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 10:51 pm Consider a change in a system, A to B. A and B cannot coexist since the process become simultaneous, therefore A and B have to exist at different points, lets's call these points t_a and t_b. t_b has to come after t_a. There is however a duration between t_a and t_b otherwise the change does not occur. t_a and t_b are points on a varaible. This variable we call time.
ONLY 'you' call that IMPOSSIBLE 'variable' 'time'. Or, if there is a 'we', then WHO is in this 'we' EXACTLY, "bahman"?
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 10:51 pm The now is when we are either at point t_a or t_b. If we are at t_a then t_b should exist otherwise change is not possible. This means that future time exists. Therefore the past time exists too. Therefore, all events in the past exist too that is called memory. The future events exist up to the point of a decision since they are decided by the laws of nature. How about traveling to the past? We do it all the time, so-called recalling memory. Can we undo events that occurred in the past? Yes. But that requires the creation of a parallel universe. We are however trapped in the second universe always.
Are you ABLE to EXPLAIN what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, that you are 'trying to' SAY here?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Exploring Time

Post by RCSaunders »

Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:42 am
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 2:01 am
Age wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 1:15 pm Absolutely every 'thing' human beings have 'created' was once 'thought of' as being absolutely impossible, and just about absolutely every 'thing' human beings have 'done' was also once 'thought of' as being absolutely impossible. But yet it was everyone of these 'thoughts' which was absolutely wrong, instead. What is called 'time travel' is not just possible but can be done very simply and very easily.
It's not time travel that is the real issue. In the sense that time travel means being able to be at different, "times," one is traveling in time for their whole existence, because one is always at different times. What is not possible is to be in two times, just as it is impossible to be in two places. Wherever you are is here and you cannot be both here and there, and whenever you are is now and you cannot be both now and then.
Are you here saying that let us say the 50 year old body, which 'you' are in, can NOT travel to let say where the 30 year old body 'is' NOR to where the 80 year old body 'is'?
What I'm saying is, however you got there, wherever you are is here (and not possibly anyplace else), and whenever you are here it is now, (not yesterday, tomorrow, or any other time). You cannot be in the past because even if you think you are, it is not the past, it is now. Think about it. Suppose you get in what you think is a time machine and suddenly find yourself in an environment you think is the past or the future, and you say to yourself, "now I am in the past," or, "now I am in the future," which are both self-contradictory. If it's now, it cannot also be the past or the future, and you surely cannot say about a present (now) experience, "I was in the past," or, "I was in the future."
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Exploring Time

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 12:18 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 10:51 pm
Philosophy Now wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:20 am Nurana Rajabova looks for a way of seeing time as if from the outside.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/147/Exploring_Time
Time is a substance that allows changes.
So, to the one known as "bahman" here, if there was NOT some 'substance' in the Universe, then the Universe would just STOP.
Yes. In higher-level one also can question the existence of the universe since time and space are intertwined.
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 12:18 pm Is the one known as "bahman", or is there absolutely ANY one, who can INFORM the rest of 'us' what this, supposed AND alleged, 'substance' is EXACTLY?
A substance is something that exists and has a set of properties.
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 12:18 pm If no, then WHERE did this ASSUMPTION that 'time' is a 'substance' COME FROM, EXACTLY?
It is not an assumption. I proved it. Read my argument again: The now is when we are either at point t_a or t_b. If we are at t_a then t_b should exist otherwise change is not possible. This means that future time exists.
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 12:18 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 10:51 pm Here is the argument:
WHY do you call 'this' argument "the argument"?

And, is 'this argument' 'your argument' or 'someone else's argument'?
It is my argument.
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 12:18 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 10:51 pm Consider a change in a system, A to B. A and B cannot coexist since the process become simultaneous, therefore A and B have to exist at different points, lets's call these points t_a and t_b. t_b has to come after t_a. There is however a duration between t_a and t_b otherwise the change does not occur. t_a and t_b are points on a varaible. This variable we call time.
ONLY 'you' call that IMPOSSIBLE 'variable' 'time'. Or, if there is a 'we', then WHO is in this 'we' EXACTLY, "bahman"?
Yes. I call it time.
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 12:18 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 10:51 pm The now is when we are either at point t_a or t_b. If we are at t_a then t_b should exist otherwise change is not possible. This means that future time exists. Therefore the past time exists too. Therefore, all events in the past exist too that is called memory. The future events exist up to the point of a decision since they are decided by the laws of nature. How about traveling to the past? We do it all the time, so-called recalling memory. Can we undo events that occurred in the past? Yes. But that requires the creation of a parallel universe. We are however trapped in the second universe always.
Are you ABLE to EXPLAIN what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, that you are 'trying to' SAY here?
I am saying that traveling into the past is possible but if you undo things then you will live in another universe forever.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Exploring Time

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 3:54 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:42 am
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 2:01 am
It's not time travel that is the real issue. In the sense that time travel means being able to be at different, "times," one is traveling in time for their whole existence, because one is always at different times. What is not possible is to be in two times, just as it is impossible to be in two places. Wherever you are is here and you cannot be both here and there, and whenever you are is now and you cannot be both now and then.
Are you here saying that let us say the 50 year old body, which 'you' are in, can NOT travel to let say where the 30 year old body 'is' NOR to where the 80 year old body 'is'?
What I'm saying is, however you got there, wherever you are is here (and not possibly anyplace else), and whenever you are here it is now, (not yesterday, tomorrow, or any other time).
Okay. I thought that was just obvious and a given.

It is for that reason also WHY I SAY and CLAIM there is Everything is ALWAYS, HERE-NOW.

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 3:54 pm You cannot be in the past because even if you think you are, it is not the past, it is now.
Yes, very true, from my perspective anyway.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 3:54 pm Think about it.
I had ALREADY, and have AGAIN, now that you have SAID this.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 3:54 pm Suppose you get in what you think is a time machine and suddenly find yourself in an environment you think is the past or the future, and you say to yourself, "now I am in the past," or, "now I am in the future," which are both self-contradictory.
Yes, and this is WHY I say, "What is called 'time travel' ...".
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 3:54 pm If it's now, it cannot also be the past or the future, and you surely cannot say about a present (now) experience, "I was in the past," or, "I was in the future."
But, because absolutely EVERY 'thing' is relative to the observer, when one is talking to "another" what one is ACTUALLY referencing could be the 'past' or the 'future'. It all DEPENDS.

'I' could say to 'you'; 'I was in the past', or, 'I was in the future', RELATIVE to what 'we' are SAYING and CALLING 'now'. And, as long as 'this' is UNDERSTOOD, then all is well and good.

See, because what is called 'time travel' is POSSIBLE, and let us say I went for a trip. When I came 'back', then I could say, 'I was in the past'. Now, one might just say, 'Okay', knowing EXACTLY what I was referring to. Whereas, another one might be somewhat confused and so then just ask some clarifying questions, to find out what I was ACTUALLY meaning.

Absolutely EVERY 'thing' is RELATIVE to the 'observer', and thus the 'situation', or, in other words, RELATIVE to 'one's' PERSPECTIVE of 'things'.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Exploring Time

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 6:02 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 12:18 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 10:51 pm
Time is a substance that allows changes.
So, to the one known as "bahman" here, if there was NOT some 'substance' in the Universe, then the Universe would just STOP.
Yes. In higher-level one also can question the existence of the universe since time and space are intertwined.
How could the WHOLE Universe just STOP?

This YET TO BE EXPLAINED, and SUPPOSED, "substance" MUST BE some VERY HEAVY DUTY "stuff".

Also, what are these "levels", which 'you' now speak of?

WHAT are these 'levels' made of, WHERE are these "levels", HOW does one DIFFERENTIATE a so-called "higher level" from a "lower level", WHAT "level" are 'you' on, and/or can you tell us ANY 'thing' MORE about these, SUPPOSED, "levels"?

Oh, and by the way, absolutely ANY one, (on ANY so-called "level"), can question the existence of the Universe, (or ANY OTHER 'thing'). And, as for 'time' and 'space' being intertwined, what has 'this' got to do with ANY 'thing' that I have SAID or ASKED so far?

By the way, since 'you' have MENTIONED 'it', what is 'time' AND 'space', to 'you', EXACTLY?
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 6:02 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 12:18 pm Is the one known as "bahman", or is there absolutely ANY one, who can INFORM the rest of 'us' what this, supposed AND alleged, 'substance' is EXACTLY?
A substance is something that exists and has a set of properties.
'you', "bahman", are EITHER a COMPLETE IMBECILE, OR, the MOST DECEPTIVE and DEVIOUS 'person' there is in this forum.

'you' WANT to MAKE THE CLAIM, "the Universe WILL STOP without the 'substance', which is called 'time'. But, EVERY 'TIME' I have QUESTIONED 'you' about 'your CLAIM', 'you' WEASEL your way out of PROVIDING ANY 'substantial' ANSWER.

Your response here is the MOST STUPID one you could have given.

I have lost count of how many times I have gone through this exact same scenario with you. That is;

You make a CLAIM.

I question you on your CLAIM.

You FAIL, ABSOLUTELY, to substantiate YOUR CLAIM.

Just so EVERY one CLEARLY KNOWS what YOU DID this 'time', I will EXPLAIN through A DEMONSTRATION.

"bahman": "Time is a 'substance', that allows changes."

'Me': 'What is that 'substance', EXACTLY, "bahman"?'

"bahman": "A 'substance' is SOME 'thing', that exists, and which has a set of properties".

AGAIN, 'you', "bahman", ARE a COMPLETE IDIOT, or, a ROBOT.

Now, if it is the 'former', then it is 'your' BELIEFS that are making 'you' SAY and EXPRESS these MOST IDIOTIC and STUPID responses.

Or, if it is the 'latter', then it is 'you' PROGRAMMER that is making 'you' SAY and EXPRESS these MOST IDIOTIC and STUPID responses. (Which, by the way, would AGAIN be because of the 'programmer's' BELIEFS.

Now, these BELIEFS revolve around;

1. The WHOLE Universe is 'materialistic'.

2. The Universe 'changes' because of 'time'.

3. 'Time' MUST therefore be a 'material' or 'matter', and so MUST therefore BE, at least, a 'substance'.

4. If I have absolutely ANY PROOF AT ALL for ANY of these BELIEFS, I do NOT KNOW, but what I BELIEVE and SAY is true, MUST BE TRUE. So, I will say just about ANY 'thing', (no matter how STUPID, ILLOGICAL, or DECEPTIVE it is).

LOOK, I asked you; What is THE 'substance', EXACTLY, which you SAY and CLAIM is 'time'. I did NOT ask you; What is 'substance'?

And, if I did ask you the latter, then you could NOT HAVE provided a MORE IDIOTIC and STUPID response than; "A substance is something that exists and has a set of properties"

OF COURSE, A 'substance' is:

SOME 'thing',

which 'exists', and

has a set of 'properties'.

But, this REALLY, literally, says absolutely NOTHING AT ALL.

"bahmna" what would 'you' think of an 'adult human being' who SAID; "Vegetables are 'a plant'," and 'you' asked them, "What is 'plant', EXACTLY?" and then they responded with:

"A plant is some 'thing', which exists, and which has a set of properties."

Seriously, what would 'you' think of 'that person' who responded, to 'you', in that way?
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 6:02 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 12:18 pm If no, then WHERE did this ASSUMPTION that 'time' is a 'substance' COME FROM, EXACTLY?
It is not an assumption. I proved it.
LOL
LOL
LOL
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 6:02 pm Read my argument again: The now is when we are either at point t_a or t_b. If we are at t_a then t_b should exist otherwise change is not possible. This means that future time exists.
I read 'your' SO-CALLED "argument" AGAIN.
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 6:02 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 12:18 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 10:51 pm Here is the argument:
WHY do you call 'this' argument "the argument"?

And, is 'this argument' 'your argument' or 'someone else's argument'?
It is my argument.
So, when "bahman" refers to, 'the argument' it is REALLY "bahman's argument".

And, as long as 'you' are AWARE of 'this', then 'you' will come to UNDERSTAND WHY 'it' is 'your argument', and 'an argument', which NO one ELSE will ACCEPT.
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 6:02 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 12:18 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 10:51 pm Consider a change in a system, A to B. A and B cannot coexist since the process become simultaneous, therefore A and B have to exist at different points, lets's call these points t_a and t_b. t_b has to come after t_a. There is however a duration between t_a and t_b otherwise the change does not occur. t_a and t_b are points on a varaible. This variable we call time.
ONLY 'you' call that IMPOSSIBLE 'variable' 'time'. Or, if there is a 'we', then WHO is in this 'we' EXACTLY, "bahman"?
Yes. I call it time.
And, considering I just ASKED 'you' to CLARIFY 'who else' calls that IMPOSSIBLE 'variable' 'time', and 'you' provides 'us' with NO one else, then I will take 'this' as 'your' ANSWER.

And, what is EXTREMELY HILARIOUS to OBSERVE here is 'you' SAYING; "I call 'it' time".
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 6:02 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 12:18 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 10:51 pm The now is when we are either at point t_a or t_b. If we are at t_a then t_b should exist otherwise change is not possible. This means that future time exists. Therefore the past time exists too. Therefore, all events in the past exist too that is called memory. The future events exist up to the point of a decision since they are decided by the laws of nature. How about traveling to the past? We do it all the time, so-called recalling memory. Can we undo events that occurred in the past? Yes. But that requires the creation of a parallel universe. We are however trapped in the second universe always.
Are you ABLE to EXPLAIN what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, that you are 'trying to' SAY here?
I am saying that traveling into the past is possible but if you undo things then you will live in another universe forever.
LOL
LOL
LOL

WHY did 'you' just NOT SAY 'this', literally, to BEGIN WITH?
Post Reply